DI with MG MA

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,451
Reaction score
10,395
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Allowed? I thought not but....

In game now.

D5.71 Deliberate Immobilization can be attempted only by ordnance, and only if the weapon's Basic TK# (for the ammunition type it chooses to fire) is > the target's lowest hull AF, and only with a hull hit at a range of ≤ six hexes. A Deliberate Immobilization attempt is not allowed against a HD/immobilized target, or with Indirect Fire or MG/IFE, or when using the Area Target Type. Acquisition DRM are not applicable to a Deliberate Immobilization attempt. However, Acquistion can be gained while attempting such a shot in case the firer subsequently fires on the target normally.

I do not think so. D5.71 excludes MGs, while not specifying whether this means SW MG or MA MG. Thus I believe all MGs are excluded.

von Marwitz
 
Last edited:

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
1,480
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
Ah, but there's the rub.

The question came as a result of an AFV firing its CMG MA as ordnance. If it makes a To Hit DR it would seems to allow DI similar to how an MG MA could make a TK DR.

...can be attempted only by ordnance ...

If this is not the case because it is an MG MA, even if firing as ordnance, this then calls into question the clarification where CMG/BMG MA can make a To Kill DR firing as ordnance during the M/AFPh due to being halved.

We clarified the MG as Ordnance for TK DR as allowed last week because the MG is not halved (as ordnance) under D3.53.

There would be contradiction in the rules where MG MA can kill as ordnance but not DI as ordnance. That just sounds counter-intuitive.

(Again, in both cases one could argue that an MG MA would be too powerful - ie: DI a Stuart, M24, M36 or as the Pz IIIs and Pz IVs.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,697
Reaction score
5,682
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
There would be contradiction in the rules where MG MA can kill as ordnance but not DI as ordnance. That just sounds counter-intuitive.
No contradiction, as the DI rule clearly excepts MG from being allowed to attempt a DI.
 

dwardzala

Va Tech Hokie
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
598
Reaction score
70
Location
Detroit/Ann Arbor Ar
Country
llUnited States
Not really a contradiction. If the MG is an MA (and its not firing IFE) it is considered ordnance. The part that restricts DI is the part of the rule that states MGs specifically are prohibited from making DI attempts.
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
1,480
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
No worries on my part gents. We disallowed DI as per the RB but it does seem strange,... an M3 LT can be killed by an SdFfz 251/1's AAMG MA or a Pz IVH by a Carriers BMG but neither could be immobilised by them. :unsure: ;)

(Note that I do agree this would make MGs far too powerful)
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,697
Reaction score
5,682
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Immobilisation aims at the wheels or the tracks: it could be more difficult for small calibre than piercing light armour.
 

Juan SantaX

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
996
Reaction score
571
Location
Sevilla
Country
llSpain
MG fire can inmobilize AFV, but no DI. And CMg can fire to kill AFVs only if it is MA if I recall that properly...
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,921
Reaction score
5,110
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
In as much as C.2 denotes that a MG is considered ordnance if it uses its FP to to make a TH attempt, I do not believe that the 1st part of D5.71 releases it from the stipulation expressed in in the 2nd part of the paragraph that it may not fire to deliberately immobilize based upon the fact that it is still considered a MG. Also, if one use the Index as further verification since it coves uses of a MG in various situations (i.e. part of the rules to the best of my knowledge), a MG remains a MG regardless of its use. The Index states:
MG (Machine_Gun): A9 [Aerial: E7.41, vs AFV: C7.22] [Bore_Sighting: C6.4-.44] [CH NA: C3.7] [Crest_Status NA: B20.95] [Deliberate Immobilization NA: C5.7] [Leadership: A7.53] [by Pinned: A7.81] [TH vs AFV: A9.6] [TK vs AFV: A9.61, D3.53-.54] [Vehicular: (see Vehicular MG: D3.5-.54)].​
 

Juan SantaX

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
996
Reaction score
571
Location
Sevilla
Country
llSpain
An MG can't Immobilize an AFV. A Final Effects DR = Final TK# results in a stun (regardless of whether the hull/turret is hit)-
You are right, as always!! LoL. I must learn not to rely on my awfull memory, or to SU and wait to read the proper answer from other people
 
Top